Treasury of Merits?

[Nick T]

What exactly is the "Treasury of Merits"? Or more to the point what exactly is the whole merit system itself?

I've heard it mentioned quite a few times in referance to Catholocism, purgatory and indulgences but I'm still not sure what exactly it is or whether it is actually a true Catholic belief.

I'm not here to debate, merely to learn about this belief and whether it has any parallel in Orthodoxy.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MERIT: The reward which God promises and gives to those who love him and by his grace perform good works. One cannot "merit" justification or eternal life, which are the free gift of God; the source of any merit we have before God is due to the grace of Christ in us (2006).

III. Merit
You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.59

2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. the fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due.... Our merits are God's gifts."62

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. the saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone.... In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.63
​

312. What are indulgences?
1471-1479
1498
Indulgences are the remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven. The faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains the indulgence under prescribed conditions for either himself or the departed. Indulgences are granted through the ministry of the Church which, as the dispenser of the grace of redemption, distributes the treasury of the merits of Christ and the Saints.

 

[Sphinx777]

Have you read through this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Merit is that which is due a person as part of the virtue of justice. When you go to work, you earn a paycheck -- this is merit.

When we do good works in a state of Grace, we merit a reward from God. Of course, unlike working for someone for a paycheck, we don't merit in the same sort of absolute way. It's more like your child does his chores and so you give him allowance. His earning his allowance is a much lesser degree than you earning a paycheck and really a sort of gift on your part.

He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man. And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.

Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works.

...there is a reward for thy work, saith the Lord

The punishments due to evil works are called "demerits".

Alexander the coppersmith hath done me much evil: the Lord will reward him according to his works

St. Thomas Aquinas writes on merit in Summa, II-I, Q. 114.


The "treasury of merit" is a certain logical explanation of what happens to what when we engage in supererogatory acts. Supererogatory acts include those involved in the Counsels of Perfection ("If thou wilt be perfect..."). When a soldier or police officer acts "beyond the call of duty" they are given a special reward. When we act in such a way that is more virtuous than strict justice requires, there is an extra reward. For example, marriage is good but celibacy is better -- therefore, the reward given to the celibate is greater.

We also make acts of reparation -- prayer and penance -- for the sins of others. For example, when we hear someone take the Lord's Name in vain, we can say a little prayer in honor of the Holy Name. This is one example of the merits of our actions being applied to other people. The Orthodox also accept that our prayers, especially the Liturgy, help the faithful departed on their journey to Heaven (though they don't use the term "Purgatory"), though they don't use scholastic terms or ideas such as "merit".

So the Treasury of Merit is the combined merit of the infinite merits of Christ according to His human nature and the incomprehensible amount of merit of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the great amount of merit of all the saints throughout all the ages. When the Church grants an indulgence, the temporal punishment due the sin is paid out of the Treasury of Merit -- someone paid that price. The practice of indulgences came before the philosophical justification for them, which is fairly common -- we do something even before we know exactly why it is that we do it.

The reason why they [indulgences] so avail is the oneness of the mystical body in which many have performed works of satisfaction exceeding the requirements of their debts; in which, too, many have patiently borne unjust tribulations whereby a multitude of punishments would have been paid, had they been incurred. So great is the quantity of such merits that it exceeds the entire debt of punishment due to those who are living at this moment: and this is especially due to the merits of Christ: for though He acts through the sacraments, yet His efficacy is nowise restricted to them, but infinitely surpasses their efficacy.

Now one man can satisfy for another, as we have explained above (Question 13, Article 2). And the saints in whom this super-abundance of satisfactions is found, did not perform their good works for this or that particular person, who needs the remission of his punishment (else he would have received this remission without any indulgence at all), but they performed them for the whole Church in general, even as the Apostle declares that he fills up "those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ... for His body, which is the Church" to whom he wrote (Colossians 1:24). These merits, then, are the common property of the whole Church. Now those things which are the common property of a number are distributed to the various individuals according to the judgment of him who rules them all. Hence, just as one man would obtain the remission of his punishment if another were to satisfy for him, so would he too if another's satisfactions be applied to him by one who has the power to do so. Source.

Eastern Orthodox usually object to the idea of indulgences and thus the Treasury of Merit because they don't draw a distinction (AFAIK) between the eternal punishment due to sin and the temporal punishment (this is also their objection to Purgatory). However, they do pray for the faithful departed souls.

And such as though envolved in mortal sins [NB: the East defines "mortal sin" differently] have not departed in despair, but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance -- by pouring forth tears, forsooth, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine by shewing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbour, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction -- of these and such like the souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing in the highest degree; which each offereth particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offereth daily for all alike; it being, of course, understood that we know not the time of their release. For that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment we know and believe; but when we know not.

There is also a similar idea in the "Aerial Toll house" theory, where the the demons are "paid off" with good works, including the good works of other people (IIRC).

Like the Catholic doctrines of transubstantiation and Purgatory, there is no real difference IMHO but the Orthodox tend to reject more philosophical / Scholastic ideas and terminology and this is their real objection -- the use of Greek philosophy (via Scholasticism) to understand the mysteries of the faith.

 

[Davidnic]

and whether it has any parallel in Orthodoxy.

I don't believe it does. I could be wrong but I think the lack of a parallel comes down to the Orthodox not having as much of a view as we do on what could be called a legal or legalistic relationship with God. Our concept of merit is likely foreign theologically to the Orthodox.

If I understand, and you would know better than I, but the Orthodox response would be that merit does not enter into it in the way the West defines it because the good we do is the good we own the creator and not something that would be involved with a quasi-legalistic system of merit; but a reflection of our will being in harmony with God's Will...and that the focus is more on Theosis and the action of the Holy Spirit in Salvation for you.

Not that it directly and in all ways would object to some view of the system of merit but I believe that there is no parallel and that the Orthodox view of the issue of merit will vary from saying it is totally wrong to not wrong but unnecessary and causing more harm and confusion as a system than good.

At least I believe that would be the view.

The closest parallel would be to say that a Catholic would view merit as a way to describe the effect on the soul of the human will doing and living the commands of the Divine will and how that effect is accomplished. For the Orthodox the problem there would be, again I think, in feeling the need to legalistically describe or reason out "how that effect is accomplished". Because in that the Orthodox would believe we can only imperfectly do that and in the end would be prone to confusion and error as people try to describe it more and more.

Again, not being an expect in your faith, I am only trying to relate it to how it relates as I know it.

Now, at this point it would be important to add something I found by the way of a description of the Eastern Catholic view of indulgences that may help you in finding a parallel; if not directly to merit at least a parallel in thought to the Indulgence system:

Indulgences: Your Grace, The Holy Father Pope John Paul II has said that this Jubilee Year of 2000 is an opportunity for Catholics to gain indulgences such as by going on pilgrimage to a church designated as a pilgrimage site or by making an act of charity towards one's neighbor. The belief in indulgences is a doctrine long held by the Roman Catholic Church.

Are Melkite Catholics and all other Eastern Catholics obligated to believe in the doctrine of indulgences? I know of Eastern Catholics who say "no", stating that it has no basis according to the Eastern understanding of sin, and that it is a "Latin" doctrine. I always understood the doctrine of indulgences to be a "Catholic" doctrine- not a "Latin" one - and therefore all Eastern and Western Catholics are to believe in it.

Are Eastern Catholics to believe in indulgences?

Bishop John's Answer : You ask whether or not Eastern Catholics are to believe in indulgences. Yes, I too have heard some folks remark that the doctrine is incompatible with Eastern theology, however, they are sadly mistaken.

The notion of an indulgence that removes the temporal punishment due to sin is deeply rooted in the theological consciousness of both East and West. While it is an explicit doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and thus a doctrine that we Eastern Catholics accept as we walk with the successor of Peter, you will find ample evidence of our Eastern affirmation of the cleansing of the soul after death as we progress towards the moment when, through God's generosity, we are admitted to eternal intimacy with Him.

When we look, for example, at the prayers that comprise the Sacrament of Holy Anointing that we celebrate as part of our observance of Holy Week, we find there, in several of the prayers, the notion that God's healing comes to us as we submit ourselves to His cleansing grace. Repeatedly, the priest prays for a purification from the effects of sin, the complete remission of the effects of sin, and for a healing that penetrates both body and soul. Many of the sacred traditions of our Eastern Church that deal with our prayers of suffrage for the dead speak of our plea that the Lord will wipe away the effects of sin, cleanse us and the faithful departed from its effects so that they might enter fully into the kingdom.

The Church, as the living, mystical Body of Christ, dispenses the mercy of God in many ways. We find that the doctrine of indulgences is a beautiful expression of the Church's role in bringing salvation and healing to both the living and the dead. Feel secure in the teachings of the Church. I suggest that you read No. 1471 of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church that Pope John Paul II addressed to all Venerable Cardinals, Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests and to all faithful [of the East and West.] This is a jubilee year of abundant graces and many indulgences. We do well to take advantage of its many blessings.
Source
​

So it would seem that there is an agreement on the dispensing of mercy and purification and such but that Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics do not feel the need for a defined system. So since the Treasury of Merits is part of that defined system you are unlikely to find a direct parallel.

 

[QuantaCura]

The doctrine of indulgences and the treasury of merit is linked with the doctrine of the communion Saints. The East accepted the principles of indulgences; it's just that the practice was more developed in the West --or at least it is now. It was also so in the East post-schism, but they repudiated it very recently during their period known as their “Exodus from Western Captivity” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (this was also when they repudiated the doctrine on original sin since it was developed most precisely in the West as a response to Pelagianism, cf. the Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672 where they teach it as we do).

For example, indulgences are specifically affirmed at the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1722. Even as late as 1838, the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople of that year merely states they cannot be used to raise money. They were practiced in the Greek Church as late as 1955. See here.

The doctrine of indulgences is linked with the doctrine of the communion Saints. The elements of this doctrine are all biblical and were present in the early Church East and West--it is more obvious in the penitential practice of the early Church, but it still applicable today of course.

First, it bears pointing out that there are three parts to repentance--contrition, confession, and bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance (this last part is often called "satisfaction.") It is the third part that is related to indulgences. Here are some biblical references to this last part (note: the DRV which I am citing uses the phrase "do penance" or the word "penance" in the place many translations use "repent" and "repentance" but the meaning is the same):

Acts 26:20 But to them first that are at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and unto all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles did I preach, that they should do penance, and turn to God, doing works worthy of penance.

(see also Matt. 3:8, Luke 3:8 )



The East never had a problem with this last element. It is affirmed by the Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, for example.

Now, there are various ways by which one brings forth fruit worthy of repentance or, in other words, makes satisfaction for sins. This is done through prayer, acts of charity, and self-denial, etc but also suffering through the chastisments that God may send Himself.

Heb. 12:[5] And you have forgotten the consolation, which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord; neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him. [6] For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. [7] Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct? [8] But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons. [9] Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits, and live? [10] And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification. [11] Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most peaceable fruit of justice.

The Church from the very beginning also prescribed such acts of satisfaction. One common one, early on, was cutting the sinner off from the sacraments for a period of time (this is still common in the East and for certain more serious sins in the West). St. Paul prescribes such satisfaction for the incestuous man in Corinth here:

1 Cor. 5:[3] I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, [4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; [5] To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Later, the Church adopted other forms of satisfaction in different times and places many taking months or even years to complete. For example, someone who committed a very grievous sin might have to live a strict disciplined life in a monastery for a period of time (this is why prisons are often called penitentiaries, from the root "penitent.")

If someone were to die before bringing forth worthy fruits, that process was and is understood to be finished in the afterlife as the Council of Florence explained:

Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains;

The hero of Eastern Orthodoxy's resistance to reunion with the Catholic Church, Mark of Ephesus, taught the exact same thing (only quibbling with the idea of fire or the idea of a place; he taught that the cleansing was “much more tormenting and punishing than anything else.&#8221:

But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones over which they have not repented at all, or greater ones for which - even though they have repented over them - they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sins but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place

An indulgence is a remittance of this need to make satisfaction either partially or fully (a "plenary indulgence). St. Paul granted such a pardon to the same incestuous man in Corinth:

2 Cor. 2 :[6] To him who is such a one, this rebuke is sufficient, which is given by many: [7] So that on the contrary, you should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. [8] Wherefore, I beseech you, that you would confirm your charity towards him. [9] For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things. [10] And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

It should be noted that during certain periods, partial indulgences were delineated by periods of time like days or years to correspond to prevailing penitential disciplines, but today they are generally called "partial" only and their value is relative to the act on which the granting of the indulgence is conditioned.

Such dispensations in regards to the need to make satisfaction were also granted in the East.

Anyway, since the need to make satisfaction extends into the afterlife, it followed logically that the indulgence would also.

Matt. 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

(see also Matt. 16:18)

Otherwise, if one were loosed on earth, but it did not effect the afterlife, the indulgence would be a cruelty deceiving the penitent into thinking he had brought forth sufficient fruits when he had not. No one in the East ever taught that when someone was loosed from the obligation towards satisfaction by the Church, the person would still be subject to the cleansing pains due to someone who had not made the sufficient satisfaction. In other words, they understood the power of the indulgence as extending to the afterlife.

Nowadays in the West, since prescribed penances are meant more to simply turn the penitent back to God through prayer rather than equal the total fruits worthy of repentance, the focus of indulgences is more on their effects in the afterlife.

So how is this related to the communion of Saints? It is from the communion Saints that indulgences have their efficacy. Since we are all one Body, the satisfaction made by some members can be applied to other members for whom it is wanting. St. Paul rejoices in this fact:

Col. 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

Those Saints (canonized and unknown) along with Christ Himself who have brought forth fruits far exceeding their own needs for repentance are applied to the person receiving the indulgence--it is why an indulgence can be granted without derogating from God's justice. Again, in Eastern Orthodoxy they may no longer synthesize all these doctrines, but the underlying principles are generally still present and they were definitely present before the schism.

This source is what we call the treasury of merit. See also Chapter X here:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of penance and reconciliation

Anyway, I hope that helps!

 

[Nick T]

Thanks for the replies!

So essentially this merit system is a way of quantifying good works in relation to God and the rewards we recieve from them with specific reference to the reduction of temporal punishment in purgatory.

I can see why I haven't heard of it in Orthodoxy; as you guys have said legalistic theology is generally not accepted in the Orthodox Churches and the merit system seems to be the very extreme end of it. We do good deeds and pray for the dead but to try and quantify it through merits seems entirely foreighn to eastern thought.

Also I have another related question: Exactly what is the modern Catholic conception of purgatory?
I ask this because I have heard many Catholics here say that it is no differant from praying for the dead in Hades however St. Mark of Ephesus specifically condemns "that souls are delivered thanks to certain purgatorial suffering and temporal fire which possess such (purgatorial) power and has the character of a help".
Is the modern Catholic conception the same as what St. Mark condemns or not? If it is then we have a disagreement. If not then we do not.

 

[Davidnic]

Thanks for the replies!

So essentially this merit system is a way of quantifying good works in relation to God and the rewards we recieve from them with specific reference to the reduction of temporal punishment in purgatory.

I can see why I haven't heard of it in Orthodoxy; as you guys have said legalistic theology is generally not accepted in the Orthodox Churches and the merit system seems to be the very extreme end of it. We do good deeds and pray for the dead but to try and quantify it through merits seems entirely foreighn to eastern thought.

Also I have another related question: Exactly what is the modern Catholic conception of purgatory?
I ask this because I have heard many Catholics here say that it is no differant from praying for the dead in Hades however St. Mark of Ephesus specifically condemns "that souls are delivered thanks to certain purgatorial suffering and temporal fire which possess such (purgatorial) power and has the character of a help".
Is the modern Catholic conception the same as what St. Mark condemns or not? If it is then we have a disagreement. If not then we do not.

Although we pray for the souls in purgatory, it is vastly different than just praying for the dead. Purgatory would be purifying without our aid so the purification is not dependent on our prayers. But we do pray for the souls there and believe those prayers are efficacious but they are not the driving force of the purification but rather the justice and mercy of God drives it all.

So we would not be at odds with St. Mark. But again our way of phrasing it all would be alien in the East in many ways.

 

[Nick T]

The doctrine of indulgences and the treasury of merit is linked with the doctrine of the communion Saints. The East accepted the principles of indulgences; it's just that the practice was more developed in the West --or at least it is now. It was also so in the East post-schism, but they repudiated it very recently during their period known as their “Exodus from Western Captivity” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (this was also when they repudiated the doctrine on original sin since it was developed most precisely in the West as a response to Pelagianism, cf. the Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672 where they teach it as we do).

For example, indulgences are specifically affirmed at the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1722. Even as late as 1838, the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople of that year merely states they cannot be used to raise money. They were practiced in the Greek Church as late as 1955. See here.

The doctrine of indulgences is linked with the doctrine of the communion Saints. The elements of this doctrine are all biblical and were present in the early Church East and West--it is more obvious in the penitential practice of the early Church, but it still applicable today of course.

First, it bears pointing out that there are three parts to repentance--contrition, confession, and bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance (this last part is often called "satisfaction.") It is the third part that is related to indulgences. Here are some biblical references to this last part (note: the DRV which I am citing uses the phrase "do penance" or the word "penance" in the place many translations use "repent" and "repentance" but the meaning is the same):



(see also Matt. 3:8, Luke 3:8 )



The East never had a problem with this last element. It is affirmed by the Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, for example.

Now, there are various ways by which one brings forth fruit worthy of repentance or, in other words, makes satisfaction for sins. This is done through prayer, acts of charity, and self-denial, etc but also suffering through the chastisments that God may send Himself.


The Church from the very beginning also prescribed such acts of satisfaction. One common one, early on, was cutting the sinner off from the sacraments for a period of time (this is still common in the East and for certain more serious sins in the West). St. Paul prescribes such satisfaction for the incestuous man in Corinth here:


Later, the Church adopted other forms of satisfaction in different times and places many taking months or even years to complete. For example, someone who committed a very grievous sin might have to live a strict disciplined life in a monastery for a period of time (this is why prisons are often called penitentiaries, from the root "penitent.")

If someone were to die before bringing forth worthy fruits, that process was and is understood to be finished in the afterlife as the Council of Florence explained:


The hero of Eastern Orthodoxy's resistance to reunion with the Catholic Church, Mark of Ephesus, taught the exact same thing (only quibbling with the idea of fire or the idea of a place; he taught that the cleansing was “much more tormenting and punishing than anything else.&#8221:


An indulgence is a remittance of this need to make satisfaction either partially or fully (a "plenary indulgence). St. Paul granted such a pardon to the same incestuous man in Corinth:


It should be noted that during certain periods, partial indulgences were delineated by periods of time like days or years to correspond to prevailing penitential disciplines, but today they are generally called "partial" only and their value is relative to the act on which the granting of the indulgence is conditioned.

Such dispensations in regards to the need to make satisfaction were also granted in the East.

Anyway, since the need to make satisfaction extends into the afterlife, it followed logically that the indulgence would also.


(see also Matt. 16:18)

Otherwise, if one were loosed on earth, but it did not effect the afterlife, the indulgence would be a cruelty deceiving the penitent into thinking he had brought forth sufficient fruits when he had not. No one in the East ever taught that when someone was loosed from the obligation towards satisfaction by the Church, the person would still be subject to the cleansing pains due to someone who had not made the sufficient satisfaction. In other words, they understood the power of the indulgence as extending to the afterlife.

Nowadays in the West, since prescribed penances are meant more to simply turn the penitent back to God through prayer rather than equal the total fruits worthy of repentance, the focus of indulgences is more on their effects in the afterlife.

As I understand it Orthodox indulgences differed from Catholic ones insomuch as Catholic indugences focused on the lessening of temporal punishment whereas the Orthodox indulgences were essentially "absolution certificates"; as you say in the West the focus is on the effect on the afterlife whereas in the East the focus remains fixed on the matter of absolution.

Also I must disagree with your dismissal of St. Marks protest as a mere quibble regarding fire and place. The thing that St. Mark is arguing against here is the idea that the fire and torment itself should act as the mechanism of cleansing.
St. Mark writes:
"For the remission of sins of those who have transgressed is presented in them [writings of the saints] as the result of a certain royal authority and love of mankind and not as a deliverance from punishment or cleansing."
You see it is not a matter of the sins being cleansed by fire (or whatever other mechanism works in purgatory) so that the soul may be allowed to enter heaven. Rather it is a soverign act of God's love (which we call upon in our prayers) that brings them into heaven, irrespective of the punishment or torment they have experianced.

So how is this related to the communion of Saints? It is from the communion Saints that indulgences have their efficacy. Since we are all one Body, the satisfaction made by some members can be applied to other members for whom it is wanting. St. Paul rejoices in this fact:

Those Saints (canonized and unknown) along with Christ Himself who have brought forth fruits far exceeding their own needs for repentance are applied to the person receiving the indulgence--it is why an indulgence can be granted without derogating from God's justice. Again, in Eastern Orthodoxy they may no longer synthesize all these doctrines, but the underlying principles are generally still present and they were definitely present before the schism.

This source is what we call the treasury of merit. See also Chapter X here:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of penance and reconciliation

Anyway, I hope that helps!

I can honestly say I have never heard of any point in history when the Orthodox have accepted the idea that the saints produce excess fruits/merits/whatever which they then give to someone in the form of an indulgence.

Could you please give me a referance that backs up your claim that this was once an Orthodox teaching?

 

[Nick T]

Although we pray for the souls in purgatory, it is vastly different than just praying for the dead. Purgatory would be purifying without our aid so the purification is not dependent on our prayers. But we do pray for the souls there and believe those prayers are efficacious but they are not the driving force of the purification but rather the justice and mercy of God drives it all.

So we would not be at odds with St. Mark. But again our way of phrasing it all would be alien in the East in many ways.

Interesting... so is it the purgatorial fire that burns away the sins without our prayers and makes the soul ready for heaven?

Essentially one of St. Mark's disagreements with purgatory was that the remission was presented as a result of the temporal punishment "cleansing" the soul and making it ready for heaven as opposed to the Orthodox view that it is a direct act of God in response to prayers, independant from any levels of punishment or suffering.

"For the remission of sins of those who have transgressed is presented in them [writings of the saints] as the result of a certain royal authority and love of mankind and not as a deliverance from punishment or cleansing."

 

[Davidnic]

Interesting... so is it the purgatorial fire that burns away the sins without our prayers and makes the soul ready for heaven?

Essentially one of St. Mark's disagreements with purgatory was that the remission was presented as a result of the temporal punishment "cleansing" the soul and making it ready for heaven as opposed to the Orthodox view that it is a direct act of God in response to prayers, independant from any levels of punishment or suffering.

"For the remission of sins of those who have transgressed is presented in them [writings of the saints] as the result of a certain royal authority and love of mankind and not as a deliverance from punishment or cleansing."

It is a direct act of God as a function of His Mercy and Justice. He acts in response to our prayers but is not limited by them in this act, so we can not say purgatory exists as a function or result of our prayers even though our prayers figure heavily into it all. That has always been how it was explained to me. That it is from His desire for us to share in His life and a function of His Mercy and Justice.

So it is, in our thought, coming from God's desire in His love to share His life with us. Without that as a base it really makes no sense. Because otherwise it would indicate that from our own actions or the desire of others we can earn heaven as a function of just reward for deeds. But we do not believe that. Salvation is a gift we work with and the more we work with God's gifts of Grace we share in His life....where our will mirrors, imperfectly but always striving for better, the desires of the Divine will.

 

[Nick T]

It is a direct act of God as a function of His Mercy and Justice. He acts in response to our prayers but is not limited by them in this act, so we can not say purgatory exists as a function or result of our prayers even though our prayers figure heavily into it all. That has always been how it was explained to me. That it is from His desire for us to share in His life and a function of His Mercy and Justice.

So it is, in our thought, coming from God's desire in His love to share His life with us. Without that as a base it really makes no sense. Because otherwise it would indicate that from our own actions or the desire of others we can earn heaven as a function of just reward for deeds. But we do not believe that. Salvation is a gift we work with and the more we work with God's gifts of Grace we share in His life....where our will mirrors, imperfectly but always striving for better, the desires of the Divine will.

to that!

It seems you were right in your earlier post: It's not so much the idea that causes the disagreement but the way it is interpreted and presented.

 

[Davidnic]

to that!

It seems you were right in your earlier post: It's not so much the idea that causes the disagreement but the way it is interpreted and presented.

I think so. I used this analogy in a different thread:

I think of purgatory like this. You are given an invitation to a party by the king. You accept and he is overjoyed to have you. He tells you in the invitation that he has prepared a safe road for you. Removed it of filth, set up places to bath on the way and guarded it from robbers with your own personal guard. And on the invitation is a drawing of you that looks amazing that will serve to identify you to the city guards. This is you drawn in a way that you have never seen. Obviously, you think, this was made by someone who sees you with much love and dignity.

You take the long trip there. It is long and difficult but you always keep going because you love the king and want to see Him.

You take some shortcuts that are not on the kings protected roads. Even though he has told you to stick to the safe path that He prepared for you to travel to him. When you go off the path you get you get dirty on ill prepared and inadequate roads. You stop at places along the way to get clean, but you still can not resist and at times depart from the King's road.

Finally you get to the Kings city. You took a poor road not too long ago and although you got back on the King's road and got to the city...you are dirty. You don't want to show yourself to the king like this. And the guards are not even sure you are invited since you do not look like the person they are told to expect or the drawing you carry. You just have so much of the dust and dirt of the strange road on you.

So the guards point out there is an inn right outside the city walls and there you can get bathed, clean clothes and become presentable. Even as you are getting ready you are longing to see your friend who invited you to come to him. But you can not hurry...you get every bit of dust off. You get all your clothes clean and fully prepared. Because until then it would just not be right to go see the King.

Eventually the guards come and get you because the King has asked for you and you fit perfectly the description He has given. You are now, exactly as the King has always seen you...clean, dignified and loved. Even when you did not see yourself like that, He always knew what you looked like at your best.
​

That bath in the analogy is given by the mercy and love of the King. All the water and soap and such comes from His stock of supplies. He desires for us to share the banquet with the dignity He has given us. Imperfect analogy but one I've always liked in my head.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Thanks for the replies!

So essentially this merit system is a way of quantifying good works in relation to God and the rewards we recieve from them with specific reference to the reduction of temporal punishment in purgatory.

It relates to purgatory only because purgatory is an extension of the penance we do in this life.

I can see why I haven't heard of it in Orthodoxy; as you guys have said legalistic theology is generally not accepted in the Orthodox Churches and the merit system seems to be the very extreme end of it. We do good deeds and pray for the dead but to try and quantify it through merits seems entirely foreighn to eastern thought.

Also, I would hesitate to say "quantifying". Just like we can say one sin is greater than another -- for example, rape is worse than simple fornication -- we can say that one meritorious act is greater than another -- for example, giving a beggar a dollar is good; housing him, clothing him, getting him sober, converting him, and finding him a job is better (good intentions in both cases assumed).

Actually, that does serve to show a point -- intention is really the point here, not the objective act itself.

And Jesus sitting over against the treasury, beheld how the people cast money into the treasury, and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing. And calling his disciples together, he saith to them: Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all they who have cast into the treasury. For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want cast in all she had, even her whole living.

The poor widow had a more pure intention, more conformed to the love of God, than the rich.

Also, St. Louis Marie de Montfort says of Our Lady,

[Mary's intentions] are so pure that she gave more glory to God by the smallest of her actions, say, twirling her distaff, or making a stitch, than did St. Laurence suffering his cruel martyrdom on the grid-iron, and even more than all the saints together in all their most heroic deeds! Mary amassed such a multitude of merits and graces during her sojourn on earth that it would be easier to count the stars in heaven, the drops of water in the ocean or the sands of the sea-shore than count her merits and graces. She thus gave more glory to God than all the angels and saints have given or will ever give him.

The widow's act was more meritorious because of the purity of her intentions than the offerings of the rich (even those who did it out of good intentions and not "blowing a trumpet before them" -- Mt 6:2). Likewise, every tiniest act of Our Lady (and those of Our Lord, of course) was done out of pure love for God and thus was more meritorious than all the sufferings and martyrdoms of all the saints put together.

How do you "quantify" something like that? You can't.

Also I have another related question: Exactly what is the modern Catholic conception of purgatory?
I ask this because I have heard many Catholics here say that it is no differant from praying for the dead in Hades however St. Mark of Ephesus specifically condemns "that souls are delivered thanks to certain purgatorial suffering and temporal fire which possess such (purgatorial) power and has the character of a help".
Is the modern Catholic conception the same as what St. Mark condemns or not? If it is then we have a disagreement. If not then we do not.

Purgatorial fire seems to be a point of contention that the Eastern Orthodox has with the Western conception of Purgatory. A couple Western writers have written on the topic:

St. Catherine of Siena, in her mystical "Dialogue" with God the Father, writes that "suffering satisfies for guilt by perfect contrition, not through the finite pain".

St. Catherine of Genoa writes,

I believe no happiness can be found worthy to be compared with that of a soul in Purgatory except that of the saints in Paradise; and day by day this happiness grows as God flows into these souls, more and more as the hindrance to His entrance is consumed. Sin's rust is the hindrance, and the fire burns the rust away so that more and more the soul opens itself up to the divine inflowing. A thing which is covered cannot respond to the sun's rays, not because of any defect in the sun, which is shining all the time, but because the cover is an obstacle; if the cover be burnt away, this thing is open to the sun; more and more as the cover is consumed does it respond to the rays of the sun

It is in this way that rust, which is sin, covers souls, and in Purgatory is burnt away by fire; the more it is consumed, the more do the souls respond to God, the true sun. As the rust lessens and the soul is opened up to the divine ray, happiness grows; until the time be accomplished the one wanes and the other waxes. Pain however does not lessen but only the time for which pain is endured. As for will: never can the souls say these pains are pains, so contented are they with God's ordaining with which, in pure charity, their will is united.

So Purgatory is conceived as less of spending time being tortured in prison as punishment but more as being purified by the Divine Love so as to be "conformed to the image of the Son" (Rom 8:29). It is the conforming that purifies the soul for Heaven, not the punishment in and of itself.

Here is an account of the Council of Florence:

Bessarion explained the difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on this subject. The Latins, he said, allow that now, and until the day of the last judgment, departed souls are purified by fire, and are thus liberated from their sins; so that, he who has sinned the most will be a longer time undergoing purification, whereas he whose sins are less will be absolved the sooner, with the aid of the Church; but in the future life they allow the eternal, and not the purgatorial fire. Thus the Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire, and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, understanding that the temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they for a time depart into a place of darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of the Divine light, and are purified -- that is, liberated from this place of darkness and woe -- by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and not by fire. Source

The objection here seems to be that the Catholic teaching is normally that in both Hell and Purgatory there is both the poena damni ("pain of damnation" or "pain of loss") and the poena sensus ("pain of sense") but that the Orthodox say that in Purgatory (Hades) there is only the poena damni ("pain of loss").

The dogmatic definition of Purgatory is very basic and limited:

Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ. But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of piety, be excluded from popular discourses before the uneducated multitude. In like manner, such things as are uncertain, or which labour under an appearance of error, let them not allow to be made public and treated of. While those things which tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks of the faithful. But let the bishops take care, that the suffrages of the faithful who are living, to wit the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other works of piety, which have been wont to be performed by the faithful for the other faithful departed, be piously and devoutly performed, in accordance with the institutes of the church; and that whatsoever is due on their behalf, from the endowments of testators, or in other way, be discharged, not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately, by the priests and ministers of the church, and others who are bound to render this (service).

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.